add_connection

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two operating modes and the return value ('A confirmation message with the connection ID(s)'), but it does not mention side effects, validation, error handling, or duplicate behavior. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with a clear summary, but it repeats the same idea in the first two sentences ('Add a new connection...' and 'This tool adds one or more connections...'). The Args section duplicates schema parameter descriptions, adding redundancy. It is not overly long, but every sentence does not earn its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage modes, and return type. It lacks edge-case context such as duplicate handling or validation behavior, but overall it provides enough information for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly explaining the single vs batch interaction model, including that source_id and destination_id are required for single mode and that items contains a list of connection dicts. This clarifies relationships beyond individual schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Add a new connection to the architecture' and 'adds one or more connections between components in the system architecture,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_connection and delete_connection by focusing on creation and explicitly mentioning batch mode.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use single vs batch mode: 'For single item: provide source_id, destination_id, and optional fields directly' and 'For batch: provide a list of connection dicts in the items parameter.' This gives actionable context, though it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.